Originalism

Last updated

Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States by Howard Chandler Christy Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States.jpg
Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States by Howard Chandler Christy

Originalism is a legal theory that bases constitutional, judicial, and statutory interpretation of text on the original understanding at the time of its adoption. Proponents of the theory object to judicial activism and other interpretations related to a living constitution framework. Instead, originalists argue for democratic modifications of laws through the legislature or through constitutional amendment. [1]

Contents

Originalism consists of a family of different theories of constitutional interpretation and can refer to original intent or original meaning. [2] Critics of originalism often turn to the competing concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that a constitution should evolve and be interpreted based on the context of current times. [3] [4] Originalism should not be confused with strict constructionism. [5]

Contemporary originalism emerged during the 1980s and greatly influenced American legal culture, practice, and academia. [6] Over time, originalism became more popular and gained mainstream acceptance by 2020. [7]

History

Proponents of originalism argue that originalism was the primary method of legal interpretation in America from the time of its founding until the time of the New Deal, when competing theories of interpretation grew in prominence. [8] [9] [10]

Modern

Jurist Robert Bork is credited with proposing the first modern theory of originalism in his 1971 law review article, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, published in The Yale Law Journal . [11] He noted that without specification in a constitutional text, judges are free to input their own values while interpreting a constitution. Bork proposed one principled method to avoid this: for judges to "take from the document rather specific values that text or history show the framers actually to have intended and which are capable of being translated into principled rules." [10] By following the original meaning, an originalist Supreme Court would therefore "need make no fundamental value choices," and its rulings would be restrained. [12]

Law professor Raoul Berger expanded on the theory in Government by Judiciary (1977), positing that the rulings by the Warren and Burger Courts were illegitimate, as they deviated from the Constitution's original intent. [13] In 1985, Edwin Meese, United States Attorney General under President Ronald Reagan, advanced a constitutional jurisprudence based on original intent in a speech before the American Bar Association, a jurisprudence that "would produce defensible principles of government that would not be tainted by ideological predilection." [14] A few months after the speech, Justice William Brennan rejected Meese's view, claiming that the original intent of the Founding Fathers of the United States was indiscernible, and that text could only be understood in present terms. [15]

During the 1980s, liberal members of the legal academy criticized the original intent formulated by Bork, Berger, and Meese. [16] Serious opposition, beginning in law schools, evolved from debates in singular law review articles to books. [17] In 1980, Paul Brest, who later became the dean of Stanford Law School, published "The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding," [18] an article whose criticism of originalism proved formative and influential. [19] Brest argued that a collective intent among the Founding Fathers of the United States was nonexistent and attempting to do so would be extremely difficult. [20] He also posited that historical changes between the time of adoption to the present made originalism inapplicable in areas such as free speech, freedom of religion, federalism, and gender discrimination. [21] Other scholars of the period adopted and expanded Brest's critiques, including H. Jefferson Powell and Ronald Dworkin. [22] Brest and Powell suggested versions of originalism that sought higher purposes than a specific framer's intent, leading to a shift in the dominant form of originalism from original intent to the original public understanding. [23]

The debate grew more heated with the failed Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork in 1986 [24] with the 1990s seeing originalism becoming a broadly endorsed view in the conservative legal movement. The Department of Justice under the Ronald Reagan administration played an important role in lending legitimacy to originalism in the 1980s. [25] [26] [27]

Types

In May 2024, conservative justices on the Supreme Court are reported to be considering new alternative interpretations of originalism. [28]

Original intent

The historical arguments made by Hugo Black in Everson v. Board of Education relied entirely on historical evidence of the views of Madison and Jefferson and the appropriateness of interpreting the Establishment Clause based on that evidence. [29] Edwin Meese once remarked that Black's record was evidence that "jurisprudence of original intention is not some recent conservative ideological creation". [30]

Original public understanding

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (pictured) was a firm believer in originalism. Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (pictured) was a firm believer in originalism.

Original public understanding originalism bases the meaning of a constitutional provision on how the public which ratified it would have generally understood it to mean. [23] Antonin Scalia was one of its most prominent theorists. [31] [32]

The conservative originalist movement spearheaded by Raoul Berger in the 1980s was a call for judicial restraint but over the years important differences have developed among originalist scholars. [33] Amy Coney Barrett explains: [34]

A faithful judge resists the temptation to conflate the meaning of the Constitution with the judge’s own political preference; judges who give into that temptation exceed the limits of their power by holding a statute unconstitutional when it is not. That was the heart of the originalist critique of the Warren and Burger Courts. At the same time, fidelity will inevitably require a court to hold some statutes unconstitutional.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has been described as a protege of Scalia's, said at her confirmation hearing that she interprets the Constitution "as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it." [35] [36]

Debate

The originalism debate has divided the American public since the school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education . [37] Justices Antonin Scalia, Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch describe themselves as originalists in scholarly writings and public speeches. [38] [39]

Critics

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a frequent critic of conservative originalism, argues that some aspects of the constitution were intentionally broad and vague to allow for future generations to interpret them along with the times. [40]

Michael Waldman argues that originalism is a new concept, and not one espoused by the founders. [41]

According to a 2021 paper in the Columbia Law Review, the Founding Fathers did not include a nondelegation doctrine in the Constitution and saw nothing wrong with delegations as a matter of legal theory, contrary to the claims of some originalists. [42]

Columbia Law School legal scholar Jamal Greene argues that originalism is remarkably unpopular outside the United States (including Canada, South Africa, India, Israel, and most of Europe), where minimalism or textualism are the recommended responses to judicial activism. [43]

Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. described originalism as "arrogance cloaked as humility" [44] during a 1985 speech at Georgetown University. In this speech, he also stated “It is arrogant to pretend that from our vantage we can gauge accurately the intent of the framers", and that politicians that claim to do so are motivated purely by political reasons, as they “have no familiarity with the historical record."

Harvard Law School legal scholar Richard H. Fallon Jr. argues at length that the Supreme Court Justices who claim to be Originalists actually apply Originalism in a highly selective manner "which typically abets substantively conservative decisionmaking." [45]

International Law and Originalism

Many Originalists reject any consideration of International law (with an exception for British law before 1791).[ citation needed ] Justice Scalia, echoing Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, wrote that "We must never forget that it is a Constitution for the United States of America that we are expounding. . . . Where there is not first a settled consensus among our own people, the views of other nations, however enlightened the Justices of this Court may think them to be, cannot be imposed upon Americans through the Constitution." [46]

Strict constructionism

Antonin Scalia differentiated the two by pointing out that, unlike an originalist, a strict constructionist would not acknowledge that he uses a cane means he walks with a cane (because, strictly speaking, this is not what he uses a cane means). [47] Scalia averred that he was "not a strict constructionist, and no-one ought to be"; he goes further, calling strict constructionism "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute". [48]

Legal scholar Randy Barnett asserts that originalism is a theory of interpretation and that constructionism is only appropriate when deriving the original intent proves difficult. [49]

Declarationism

Declarationism is a legal philosophy that incorporates the United States Declaration of Independence into the body of case law on level with the United States Constitution. It holds that the Declaration is a natural law document and so that natural law has a place within American jurisprudence. [50] Harry V. Jaffa and Clarence Thomas have been cited as proponents of this school of thought. [50]

See also

Related Research Articles

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federalist Society</span> American conservative legal organization

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (FedSoc) is an American conservative and libertarian legal organization that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Headquartered in Washington, D.C., it has chapters at more than 200 law schools and features student, lawyer, and faculty divisions; the lawyers division comprises more than 70,000 practicing attorneys in ninety cities. Through speaking events, lectures, and other activities, it provides a forum for legal experts of opposing conservative views to interact with members of the legal profession, the judiciary, and the legal academy. It is one of the most influential legal organizations in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Antonin Scalia</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1986 to 2016

Antonin Gregory Scalia was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2016. He was described as the intellectual anchor for the originalist and textualist position in the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative wing. For catalyzing an originalist and textualist movement in American law, he has been described as one of the most influential jurists of the twentieth century, and one of the most important justices in the history of the Supreme Court. Scalia was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018, and the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University was named in his honor.

Legal formalism is both a descriptive theory and a normative theory of how judges should decide cases. In its descriptive sense, formalists maintain that judges reach their decisions by applying uncontroversial principles to the facts; formalists believe that there is an underlying logic to the many legal principles that may be applied in different cases. These principles, they claim, are straightforward and can be readily discovered by anyone with some legal expertise. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., by contrast, believed that "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience". The formalist era is generally viewed as having existed from the 1870s to the 1920s, but some scholars deny that legal formalism ever existed in practice.

In the United States, strict constructionism is a particular legal philosophy of judicial interpretation that limits or restricts the powers of the federal government only to those expressly, i.e., explicitly and clearly, granted to the government by the United States Constitution. While commonly confused with textualism or originalism, they are not the same, and in fact frequently contradict, as textualists like Antonin Scalia have noted.

Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect substantive laws and certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. Courts have asserted that such protections stem from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Substantive due process demarcates the line between acts that courts deem subject to government regulation or legislation and those they consider beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent. In 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas called on the Supreme Court to reconsider all of its rulings that were based on substantive due process.

Constitution in Exile is a controversial term that refers to the situation resulting from provisions of the United States Constitution allegedly not having been enforced according to their "original intent" or "original meaning". Some originalists might argue, for example, that the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause do not authorize economic legislation dating back to the New Deal.

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

Original intent is a theory in law concerning constitutional and statutory interpretation. It is frequently used as a synonym for originalism; while original intent is one theory in the originalist family, it has some salient differences which has led originalists from more predominant schools of thought such as original meaning to distinguish original intent as much as legal realists do.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Living Constitution</span> U.S. Constitutional interpretation

The Living Constitution, or judicial pragmatism, is the viewpoint that the U.S. constitution holds a dynamic meaning even if the document is not formally amended. The Constitution is said to develop alongside society's needs and provide a more malleable tool for governments. The idea is associated with views that contemporary society should be considered in the constitutional interpretation of phrases. The Constitution is referred to as the living law of the land as it is transformed according to necessities of the time and the situation. Some supporters of the living method of interpretation, such as professors Michael Kammen and Bruce Ackerman, refer to themselves as organicists.

In American law, the unitary executive theory is a Constitutional law theory according to which the President of the United States has sole authority over the executive branch. It is "an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House". The theory often comes up in jurisprudential disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch; transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to influence agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope, with more expansive versions of the theory becoming the focus of modern political debate. These expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation.

Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is based exclusively on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law.

Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004), is a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of a Washington publicly funded scholarship program which excluded students pursuing a "degree in devotional theology". This case examined the "room ... between the two Religion Clauses", the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.

Judicial minimalism refers to a philosophy in United States constitutional law which promotes itself as a politically moderate viewpoint such as that of retired Judge Sandra Day O'Connor. It is often compared to other judicial philosophies such as judicial activism, judicial originalism, and judicial textualism. Judicial minimalism takes its approach from a limited method of decision-making conceived by Edmund Burke.

Constitutional theory is an area of constitutional law that focuses on the underpinnings of constitutional government. It overlaps with legal theory, constitutionalism, philosophy of law and democratic theory. It is not limited by country or jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial interpretation</span> Ways courts interpret laws, especially Constitutional laws

Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary. This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.

Law and corpus linguistics (LCL) is an academic sub-discipline that uses large databases of examples of language usage equipped with tools designed by linguists called corpora to better get at the meaning of words and phrases in legal texts. Thus, LCL is the application of corpus linguistic tools, theories, and methodologies to issues of legal interpretation in much the same way law and economics is the application of economic tools, theories, and methodologies to various legal issues.

<i>The Originalist</i> Play about the US Supreme Court

The Originalist is a 2015 play that depicts the relationship between Antonin Scalia, at the time an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and a fictional Supreme Court law clerk whose views differ from his. Written by John Strand, the play was originally produced for stage performance in Washington, DC in 2015 under director Molly Smith; actor Edward Gero portrayed Scalia. The play received a positive review in The New York Times and has been produced at multiple theaters. In March 2017, the play was broadcast on public television.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amy Coney Barrett</span> US Supreme Court justice since 2020

Amy Vivian Coney Barrett is an American lawyer and jurist serving since 2020 as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. The fifth woman to serve on the court, she was nominated by President Donald Trump. Barrett was a U.S. circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from 2017 to 2020.

<i>Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts</i> Book by Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner

Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts is a 2012 book by United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and lexicographer Bryan A. Garner. Following a foreword written by Frank Easterbrook, then Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Scalia and Garner present textualist principles and canons applicable to the analysis of all legal texts, following by approaches specific to the interpretation of government statutes. Finally, Scalia and Garner present "Thirteen Falsities Exposed," mostly focused on attacking the philosophy of a Living Constitution, in which the interpretation of legal texts evolves alongside public attitudes.

References

  1. ↑ Alt, Robert (November 15, 2022). "Originalism Bolsters the Democratic Process by Checking Judges" . Retrieved May 3, 2024.
  2. ↑ Strang 2019, p. 10.
  3. ↑ Ackerman, Bruce (January 1, 2017). "The Holmes Lectures: The Living Constitution". Yale University Law School.
  4. ↑ Vloet, Katie (September 22, 2015). "Two Views of the Constitution: Originalism vs. Non-Originalism". University of Michigan Law.
  5. ↑ Scalia, Antonin. "Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws" (PDF). University of Utah . Archived from the original (PDF) on September 11, 2006. Retrieved March 7, 2022.
  6. ↑ Strang 2019, p. 9.
  7. ↑ Chemerinsky 2022, p. 10–12.
  8. ↑ Strang 2019, p. 9–42.
  9. ↑ Currie, David P. (2005). The Constitution in Congress: Democrats and Whigs 1829–1861. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. xiii. ISBN   978-0226129006.
  10. 1 2 Wurman 2017, p. 14.
  11. ↑ Wurman 2017, p. 13–14.
  12. ↑ Strang 2019, p. 23–24.
  13. ↑ Strang 2019, p. 24.
  14. ↑ Wurman 2017, p. 13.
  15. ↑ Wurman 2017, p. 15.
  16. ↑ Segall 2018, p. 65–66.
  17. ↑ Segall 2018, p. 66.
  18. ↑ Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding, 60 Boston University Law Review 204–238 (1980).
  19. ↑ Segall 2018 , p. 66; Wurman 2017 , p. 16.
  20. ↑ Segall 2018 , pp. 66–67; Wurman 2017 , pp. 16–17.
  21. ↑ Segall 2018, p. 67.
  22. ↑ Wurman 2017 , p. 16; Segall 2018 , pp. 67–68.
  23. 1 2 Wurman 2017, p. 16.
  24. ↑ Maltz 2000, p. 142.
  25. ↑ Teles, Steven M. (2009). "Transformative Bureaucracy: Reagan's Lawyers and the Dynamics of Political Investment". Studies in American Political Development. 23 (1): 61–83. doi:10.1017/S0898588X09000030. ISSN   1469-8692.
  26. ↑ Sawyer, Logan E. (2017). "Principle and Politics in the New History of Originalism". American Journal of Legal History. 57 (2): 198–222. doi:10.1093/ajlh/njx002. ISSN   0002-9319.
  27. ↑ Baumgardner, Paul (2019). "Originalism and the Academy in Exile". Law and History Review. 37 (3): 787–807. doi:10.1017/S0738248019000336. ISSN   0738-2480. JSTOR   26756361.
  28. ↑ Bazelon, Emily (April 29, 2024). "How 'History and Tradition' Rulings Are Changing American Law - A new legal standard is gaining traction among conservative judges — one that might turn back the clock on drag shows, gun restrictions and more". The New York Times . Archived from the original on April 29, 2024. Retrieved April 29, 2024.
  29. ↑ Drakeman 2010, p. 107.
  30. ↑ Yarbrough 2008, p. 263.
  31. ↑ Purdy, Jedediah (2016). "Scalia's Contradictory Originalism". The New Yorker.
  32. ↑ "CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Legal Sidebar The Modes of Constitutional Analysis: Original Meaning". congress.gov. Congressional Research Service.
  33. ↑ Cross 2013, p. 11.
  34. ↑ Barrett, Amy Coney (2017). "Countering the Majoritarian Difficulty". Constitutional Commentary. 32: 80–1.
  35. ↑ Kranish, Michael; Barnes, Robert; Boburg, Sahwn; Merimow, Ann E. (September 26, 2020). "Amy Coney Barrett, a disciple of Justice Scalia, is poised to push the Supreme Court further right". The Washington Post . Archived from the original on September 27, 2020. Retrieved September 27, 2020.
  36. ↑ "AP Explains: Originalism, Barrett's judicial philosophy". Associated Press. October 14, 2020.
  37. ↑ Maltz 2000, p. 141.
  38. ↑ Chemerinsky 2022, p. 12.
  39. ↑ Journal, A. B. A. "Chemerinsky: Originalism has taken over the Supreme Court". ABA Journal. Retrieved July 21, 2024.
  40. ↑ Liptak, Adam (October 10, 2022). "Justice Jackson Joins the Supreme Court, and the Debate Over Originalism". The New York Times. Retrieved November 22, 2023.
  41. ↑ Waldman, Michael (2023). The supermajority: how the Supreme Court divided America (First Simon & Schuster hardcover ed.). New York London; Toronto; Sydney; New Delhi: Simon & Schuster. ISBN   978-1-6680-0606-1.
  42. ↑ Mortenson, Julian Davis; Bagley, Nicholas (2021). "Delegation at the Founding". Columbia Law Review. 121 (2).
  43. ↑ Greene, Jamal (November 2009). "On the Origins of Originalism". Texas Law Review. 88 (1): 1–89.
  44. ↑ "Justice Brennan Calls Criticism of Court Disguised Arrogance". Associated Press. October 13, 1985. Archived from the original on March 7, 2016. Retrieved July 13, 2016– via LA Times.
  45. ↑ Fallon, Richard H. (December 2023). "Selective Originalism and Judicial Role Morality". Texas Law Revue. 102 (2).
  46. ↑ Scalia, Antonin; Garner, Bryan A. (2011). Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. St. Paul, MN: West Group. ISBN   978-0314275554.
  47. ↑ See Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (1993)
  48. ↑ A. Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, ISBN   978-0-691-00400-6, Amy Guttman ed. 1997, at p. 23.
  49. ↑ Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause Archived October 19, 2020, at the Wayback Machine
  50. 1 2 Kersch, Ken I. "Beyond originalism: Conservative declarationism and constitutional redemption." Md. L. Rev. 71 (2011): 229.

References

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.